|Publication number||US8005016 B2|
|Application number||US 12/259,650|
|Publication date||Aug 23, 2011|
|Filing date||Oct 28, 2008|
|Priority date||Oct 28, 2008|
|Also published as||CA2742775A1, CN102197625A, CN102197625B, CN103795628A, EP2342864A1, EP2342864A4, US8605627, US20100103846, US20110292838, US20140105071, WO2010048698A1|
|Publication number||12259650, 259650, US 8005016 B2, US 8005016B2, US-B2-8005016, US8005016 B2, US8005016B2|
|Inventors||Jerome Chiabaut, David Allan, Nigel Bragg|
|Original Assignee||Nortel Networks Limited|
|Export Citation||BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan|
|Patent Citations (11), Non-Patent Citations (1), Referenced by (4), Classifications (11), Legal Events (8)|
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet|
This is the first application filed for the present invention.
The present invention relates to traffic forwarding in packet networks, and in particular to a Provider Link State Bridging (PLSB) computation method.
Network operators and carriers are deploying packet-switched communications networks in place of circuit-switched networks. In packet-switched networks such as Internet Protocol (IP) networks, IP packets are routed according to routing state stored at each IP router in the network. Similarly, in Ethernet networks, Ethernet frames are forwarded according to forwarding state stored at each Ethernet switch in the network. The present invention applies to communications networks employing any Protocol Data Unit (PDU) based network and in this document, the terms “packet” and “packet-switched network”, “routing”, “frame” and “frame-based network”, “forwarding” and cognate terms are intended to cover any PDUs, communications networks using PDUs and the selective transmission of PDUs from network node to network node.
Multicast forwarding of data packets (where packets are sent from a source node to multiple destination nodes more or less simultaneously) is of increasing importance as demand for services such as Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) and Video on Demand (VoD) grows.
Protocols such as Intermediate System-Intermediate System (IS-IS) and Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and Multicast OSPF are used to distribute topology information to permit distributed calculation of paths that interconnect multiple nodes, resulting in the installation of the forwarding state required to implement those paths. OSPF and IS-IS are run in a distributed manner across nodes of the network so that, for example, when a topology change occurs in the network such as a node or link failure, this information is flooded to all nodes by the protocol's operation, and each node will locally recompute paths to circumvent the failure based on a consistent view of the network topology.
In Ethernet networks, Provider Backbone Transport (PBT), also known as Provider Back-Bone Bridging-Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE), as described in Applicant's British patent number GB 2422508 is used to provide a unicast Ethernet transport technology. Provider Link State Bridging (PLSB) as described in Applicant's co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/537,775 will be used to provide a multicast transport capability for Ethernet networks using IS-IS to set up both unicast paths and multicast trees in the network. Both above patent documents are hereby incorporated by reference.
While the present invention is not limited to the application of a routing system to Ethernet bridging, Ethernet terminology is used in this disclosure where possible. So, for example, the term filtering database (FDB) can be considered interchangeable with any term for an information repository of packet forwarding information, such as forwarding information base or label information base.
Typically, multicast trees in a PLSB network are computed using an all-pairs shortest path multicast route computation algorithm known, for example, from Applicant's co-pending U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20070165657. In accordance with this method, when a node receives either a multicast group membership change or a network topology change (for example via a Link State Protocol Data Unit—LSP) the node employs algorithms such as Dijkstra's algorithm to compute both unicast connectivity and the set of pairs of network nodes that are connected by a shortest path which traverses the computing node. For that set of node pairs, the node determines where intersections of multicast group membership occur, and defines the required FDB entries to instantiate its portion of multicast paths accordingly. Both Unicast and Multicast forwarding state implementing the computed paths is then installed in the node's filtering database (FDB), so that received packets can be forwarded to the appropriate output port(s) of the node, based on the destination address in the frame.
As may be appreciated, identifying pairs of nodes for which the respective shortest path traverses a particular node is computationally intensive, because it involves examining the paths extending from each node to every other node. In some cases, the challenge of performing the required computations within an acceptable period of time can impose limitations on the size of the network. Clearly, more powerful processors can be used to increase the speed of computation, but only by increasing the cost of each node, which may be undesirable.
Techniques for improving the efficiency of multicast route computation in packet switched networks remain highly desirable.
Thus, an aspect of the present invention provides a method of multicast route computation in a link state protocol controlled network. A spanning tree is computed from a first node to every other node in the network using a known spanning tree protocol. The network is then divided into two or more partitions, each partition encompassing an immediate neighbour node of the first node and any nodes of the network subtending the neighbour node on the spanning tree. Two or more of the partitions are merged when a predetermined criterion is satisfied. Nodes within all of the partitions except a largest one of the partitions are then identified, and each identified node is examined to identify node pairs for which a respective shortest path traverses the first node.
Further features and advantages of the present invention will become apparent from the following detailed description, taken in combination with the appended drawings, in which:
It will be noted that throughout the appended drawings, like features are identified by like reference numerals.
The present invention provides a PLSB computation method in which the number of nodes that must be examined, in order to find all of the node pairs for which the respective shortest path traverses a given node, is minimized. In some cases, the number of nodes that must be examined can be reduced to zero. Embodiments of the invention are described below, by way of example only, with reference to
As an initial matter, it should be noted that the method of the present invention is valid for networks in which computed shortest paths are symmetric (that is, the network can be represented as an undirected graph) and, if two or more equal-cost paths can be computed between any two nodes, a tie-breaking method must be implemented which will select one of the equal-cost paths in such a way that the selected “shortest” paths are symmetric and locally consistent. In this respect, “locally consistent” means that any sub-path of the equal-cost path selected by the tie-breaking method must itself be a shortest path selected by the tie-breaking method. A representative tie-breaking method, which may be used in conjunction with the methods of the present invention, is known from Applicant's co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/964,478, which was filed on Dec. 26, 2007.
Referring first to
Referring now to
By construction, each partition will therefore include a respective one of the neighbour nodes, and all of the nodes that subtend that neighbour node on the spanning tree. For convenience of description, each branch/partition may be referenced using the identifier of the respective neighbour node which serves as the root of that branch. Thus, in
As may be seen from
A further reduction in the number of nodes that must be examined can be obtained by recognising that the shortest path between any node in one partition and any node in any other partition will not traverse node “A” if, and only if, there is a path between the respective root nodes of the involved partitions that is shorter than the two-hop path through node “A”. For example, consider a path between nodes M and R in the embodiment of
This process of identifying shorter paths between pairs of root nodes in the pair of partitions or super-partitions under consideration, and merging partitions whenever a sufficient number of shorter paths is found, can be repeated until either: all of the partitions have been merged into a one super-partition (which in fact encompasses the entire network except node “A”); or there are no more pairs of partitions for which all the root nodes are interconnected by paths that are shorter than the two-hop paths through node “A”. Whether two partitions can be merged can be determined by considering the root nodes in the proposed merged partition. In the simple case of a pair of partitions each having a single root node, the two partitions can be merged if, and only if, the respective root nodes of the two partitions are connected by a shorter path than the two-hop path through node “A”. For the more complex case of a partition having one root node and a super-partition having N (where N>1) root nodes, the two partitions can be merged together if none of the shortest paths between the root node of the partition and the N root nodes of the super-partition go through node “A”.
Thus, continuing the example at
As may be seen in
It will be understood that the benefits obtained by merging partitions is dependent on the network topology. In a scenario in which all partitions can be merged into a single super-partition, which therefore encompasses the entire network, then the number of nodes that must be examined is zero (after the initial overhead of the partitioning step). In a more typical scenario, the process of merging partitions will result in a plurality of partitions and/or super-partitions. In the special case in which node “A” is a dual-connected edge node, the initial number of partitions is two. If these two partitions can be merged successfully, the number of nodes that must be subsequently examined is reduced to zero. Otherwise, in the worst case, the number of nodes that must be examined is slightly less than half the number of nodes in the network, which is still a substantial improvement over conventional methods.
As is known in the art, route computation methods such as Intermediate System-Intermediate System (IS-IS) and Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and Multicast OSPF can produce multiple equal-cost paths between node pairs. In such cases, the above-described method for merging partitions may be used without modification where either: the “cost” of each path is proportional to the number of hops; or the “cost” of a direct link between two partitions is less than the “cost” of the two-hop path through the node of interest (node “A” in the example of
A tie-breaking algorithm must be used to select a “shortest” path or subset of shortest paths from among the set of equal-cost paths between a node pair. In such cases, the above-described method for merging partitions can be used, provided that the “shortest” path(s) selected by the tie-breaking algorithm are symmetric and locally consistent.
For example, in the network of
As may be appreciated, this same methodology can be extended to a case where the route computation algorithm computes a set of equal-cost paths, and the tie breaking mechanism operates to select a subset of two or more of these equal cost paths as the shortest paths. In this case, the criterion for merging two partitions is that none of the selected shortest paths traverse the node under consideration. Thus, for example, the tie-breaking mechanism could potentially select any two of the paths between nodes C and E as the set of shortest paths, and the above-described methods could be used to merge partition “C” with super-partition “BDE” if this set of shortest paths did not include the path through node “A”.
The embodiment(s) of the invention described above is(are) intended to be exemplary only. The scope of the invention is therefore intended to be limited solely by the scope of the appended claims.
|Cited Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US4912656 *||Sep 26, 1988||Mar 27, 1990||Harris Corporation||Adaptive link assignment for a dynamic communication network|
|US6330605 *||Nov 19, 1998||Dec 11, 2001||Volera, Inc.||Proxy cache cluster|
|US20030026268 *||Mar 11, 2002||Feb 6, 2003||Siemens Technology-To-Business Center, Llc||Characteristic routing|
|US20060285526 *||Jun 13, 2006||Dec 21, 2006||Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.||Power saving apparatus and method in a wireless communication system|
|US20070036178 *||Feb 2, 2006||Feb 15, 2007||Susan Hares||Layer 2 virtual switching environment|
|US20070086361||Oct 2, 2006||Apr 19, 2007||Nortel Networks Limited||Provider link state bridging|
|US20070165657||Feb 5, 2007||Jul 19, 2007||Nortel Networks Limited||Multicast implementation in a link state protocol controlled Ethernet network|
|US20080144644||Sep 4, 2007||Jun 19, 2008||Nortel Networks Limited||Method and apparatus for exchanging routing information and the establishment of connectivity across multiple network areas|
|US20090109870 *||Oct 26, 2007||Apr 30, 2009||Motorola, Inc.||Method for intelligent merging of ad hoc network partitions|
|EP1455510A2||Feb 25, 2004||Sep 8, 2004||Alcatel||Method and apparatus for updating provider domain due to customer TCNS|
|GB2422508A||Title not available|
|1||U.S. Appl. No. 11/964,478, filed Dec. 26, 2007, Inventors: Jerome Chaibaut, David Allan and Nigel Bragg, Title: Tie-Breaking in Shortest Path Determination, 26 pages of specification/claims/abstract and 8 pages of drawings.|
|Citing Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US8605627 *||Aug 5, 2011||Dec 10, 2013||Rockstar Consortium Us Lp||Provider link state bridging (PLSB) computation method|
|US8619785||Apr 28, 2009||Dec 31, 2013||Ciena Corporation||Pre-computing alternate forwarding state in a routed ethernet mesh network|
|US20100271936 *||Apr 28, 2009||Oct 28, 2010||Nortel Networks Limited||Pre-Computing Alternate Forwarding State in a Routed Ethernet Mesh Network|
|US20110292838 *||Aug 5, 2011||Dec 1, 2011||Nortel Networks Limited||Provider link state bridging (plsb) computation method|
|Cooperative Classification||H04L45/48, H04L45/66, H04L45/122, H04L45/04, H04L45/16|
|European Classification||H04L45/04, H04L45/16, H04L45/66, H04L45/48|
|Oct 28, 2008||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED,CANADA
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:CHIABAUT, JEROME;ALLAN, DAVID;BRAGG, NIGEL;REEL/FRAME:021749/0405
Effective date: 20081003
Owner name: NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED, CANADA
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:CHIABAUT, JEROME;ALLAN, DAVID;BRAGG, NIGEL;REEL/FRAME:021749/0405
Effective date: 20081003
|Oct 28, 2011||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: ROCKSTAR BIDCO, LP, NEW YORK
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED;REEL/FRAME:027143/0717
Effective date: 20110729
|Dec 6, 2011||CC||Certificate of correction|
|Jun 21, 2013||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP, TEXAS
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:ROCKSTAR BIDCO, LP;REEL/FRAME:030662/0785
Effective date: 20120509
|Mar 6, 2014||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: BOCKSTAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC, DELAWARE
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP;REEL/FRAME:032399/0116
Effective date: 20131113
|Dec 31, 2014||FPAY||Fee payment|
Year of fee payment: 4
|Feb 9, 2015||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: RPX CLEARINGHOUSE LLC, CALIFORNIA
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP;ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM LLC;BOCKSTAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC;AND OTHERS;REEL/FRAME:034924/0779
Effective date: 20150128
|Mar 9, 2016||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS COLLATERAL AGENT, IL
Free format text: SECURITY AGREEMENT;ASSIGNORS:RPX CORPORATION;RPX CLEARINGHOUSE LLC;REEL/FRAME:038041/0001
Effective date: 20160226